EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Musicians are EEs of LVN, Sampaguita and Premiere. They passed the right of control test, where a person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. The call slips, schedules, meals, transpo, and the supervision of the motion pictures directors (EE of LVN et.al) not the musical directors are indicative of control of the means. ER-EE exists between coop and its ownermembers for purposes of SSS coverage. SC held that coop is like a corporation which has a separate and distinct personality than its ownermembers employed in Stanfilco. Columnist is not an EE of PDI. Rules (lifestyle, deadline, space constraint, and must-be highly relevant) which served as general guidelines towards achievement of result are not indicative of the power of control. Orozco is an independent contractor. She uses her skills, talents, feminist perspective as tools to write. The approval or rejection of her work is the control of the result/end, not the means. Tana who worked as a regular farmhand working everyday and only as an arador for the cultivation period and paid 15-day wage not pakyaw, and was controlled by an overseer, is an EE of Ayalde. Even if he owned his carabao and tools, he does not own an independent business of plowing. Economic relations test is controlling in hybrid situations of independent contractor and ER-EE relationship. Insurance agent not an EE of Insular Life. Guidelines are not ER-EE control but rules expected of an insurance company. Selling methods are his prerogative. On MR, Court held no ER-EE but a principal-agent when he became a Regional Sales Manager (from insurance agent). No subsequent contract. He was made a lead agent. No evidence of labor law control only policy directives, codes of conduct governed by the insurance code and the law on agency.

LVN Pictures v LVN Musicians Guild

Republic v Asiapro Cooperative

Orozco v 5th Division of the Court of Appeals

SSS v Court of Appeals

Insular Life v NLRC

Tongko v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co

Jardin v NLRC

Rosario Brothers Inc v Ople

Fulache v ABS-CBN

Taxi drivers are not lessees but EEs. Every other day, 24 hour work sked under a boundary system is not a leasehold. In lease, lessor loses complete control, here operator owns CPC and sees to it that driver follows route. Plus, they are usually necessary and desirable in the business of Goodman Taxi. Tailors, pressers, stitchers passed the 4fold test even if paid weekly on piece-work basis since it is in line with 97(f) of LC definition of wages. Drivers, production assistants of ABS-CBN are regular rank and file not independent contractors. By claiming redundancy, ABS-CBN admitted that they were regular EEs. Good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily destroyed by availment of services of an IC to replace the services of the terminated EEs. ICs are justified if it is more economic and efficient method of production. Routehelpers are hired using labor-only contractors who dont have substantial capitalization (Cocacola own the trucks), and routehelpers are found to be component functions in the company plus control exercised by company supervisors. Elements of Labor-Only contracting: 1. No sufficient capitalization; and 2. Activities not directly related to the main business of the principal; OR 3. Does not exercise control Contract is not controlling. Even if forwarders have similar jobs with regulars, there was good faith in contracting out absent bad faith, and for purposes of greater economy and efficiency. No BF: 1. No regular was dismissed or displaced 2. No reduction of working hours 3. No splitting of bargaining unit ER can farm out activities regardless if its peripheral or core in nature. It is within MP. Promm-Gem held legit IC with substantial capitalization. SAPS is labor-only since it has no substantial capitalization. According to PAL, subs cap is enough. SC says, even if only one of the two elements is present,

JOB CONTRACTING & LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING

Asian Alcohol Corporation v NLRC

Coca-Cola Bottlers v Dela Cruz

Temic Automotive Phils v Temic Automotive Phils Employees

Aliviado v Procter and Gamble

PAL v Ligan

Babas v Lorenzo Shipping

SMC v MAERC

there is labor-only contracting. Here, PAL was found to have exercised control plus the activities were directly related to the main business of PAL. (control trumps subs cap) Leasing of its equipment, tools, and tractors from the principal negates subs cap. BMSI is labor-only contractor. EEs worked at Lorenzo Shipping premises and nowhere else. Lack of evidence of control. EEs jobs are directly related to the main business of LSC. No other client but LSC. Registration with DOLE is not controlling. Simply prevents the legal presumption of being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. Even with substantial capitalization, MAERC was held a labor-only contractor. Control was exercised by SMC. Warehouse of MAERC was rented by SMC and the most revealing letter in jurisprudence states that MAERC has no independent business. It was only set up to specifically meet SMCs needs to avert a strike. No EEs were assigned other than to SMC. In legit job contracting, principal is solidarily liable only when contractor fails to pay wages. LIMITED PURPOSE: to ensure payment of wages. In labor-only, principal is solidarily liable with MAERC not just for the wages but for all the rightful claims. COMPREHENSIVE PURPOSE: to prevent circumvention of labor laws. SC took JN of independent contractors for janitorial and maintenance jobs. They are not independent and integral steps in or aspects of essential operations of Kimberly which is to manufacture consumer paper products and cigarette paper. Non-janitors and maintenance workers were declared regulars in this case. Their votes were allowed to be counted. 18 mos. Is held valid. ER-EE may agree due to company policy or nature of work especially when there is a need to learn skills, qualifications and, experience, or training. 18 months is needed to determine fitness for the job since publication takes 1 year. The contract must stipulate probationary status and the standard to be qualified as regular.

Kimberly Independent Labor Union v Drilon

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT
Buiser, et al v Leogardo

A.M. Oreta & Co, Inc v NLRC

Mariwasa Mfg v Leogardo

Holiday Inn Manila v NLRC

St. Theresitas Academy v NLRC

Pines City Educational Center v NLRC

PDI v Magtibay

Woodbridge School v Pe Benito

Even probationary EEs are entitled to security of tenure. ER and EE can extend 6 mos period even if not prearranged if it is for EEs benefit to improve his work. The extension was ex gratia. There is no finding of strategy to evade legal consequence of regularship. Double probation is illegal. After OJT, when she was hired, her work is deemed acceptable and therefore qualified to be a regular. Even if year-to-year contract, permanent status was attained in 3 years, according to Manual of Regularization for Private Schools. Ariola didnt have to undergo 3 yr probationary employment for her teaching competence was tried and tested for 22 years. Exempted in the application of A281 are contracts of fixed term (probationary for one-sem renewable) voluntarily agreed into by parties. Brent v Zamora was applied. Hence, only those who did not sign were illegally dismissed. Magtibay was validly dismissed as a probationary employee for failure to qualify as a regular EE in accordance with company standards made known to him at the time of engagement. There was one on one seminar with Personnel Assistant. Direct supervisor diligently briefed him of his responsibilities. There was due process. Notice and hearing is only required for dismissal due to just cause. For the failing to qualify cause, only apprising of the company standards during employment is required as due process. Probationary EEs are entitled to security of tenure. There must be due process in dismissal. There was no substantive due process in the dismissal. No factual basis for failure to qualify and no evidence of BF in the manifesto that would qualify as serious misconduct. Limited security of tenure for probationary EEs. Only until their contracts lapsed. Reasonable Connection Test: there must be a reasonable connection between the particular activity performed in the usual business of the ER. At least one year is sufficient evidence of

KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT De Leon v NLRC

indispensability. What matters is the nature of activities in relation to the business, all circumstances, the length of time and the continued existence of the job. De Leon is REGULAR NOT CASUAL. He does maintenance when there are no painting jobs for La Tondena. Sales route helpers passed the RCT. The nature of work must be viewed in its entirety and not in a confined scope. Even post prod is indispensable as they maintain them. Brent School v Zamora was applied. Fixed term agreement (5 mos) was struck down because it mocks the law (precludes the acquisition of security of tenure). REGULAR Fixed-term employment is valid. For fixed-term employment, nature of work is not controlling (even if N&D) but the day certain agreed upon by the parties. Article 280 applies only to contracts with intent to circumvent security of tenure. Contract is valid if: 1. Knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon without force, duress, or improper pressure vitiating consent. 2. Equal terms and without moral dominance of ER over EE. CONTRACTUAL 3y contract of flight attendants held invalid. Brent v Zamora test was applied. Is there intent to circumvent security of tenure? Yes. EEs right to unilaterally pre-terminate contract anytime for any cause intended to prevent security of tenure even during within 3 years. REGULAR Test for PROJECT EE: specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which is determined at the time of the engagement 2 types of Project EE: 1.within regular business but is distinct and identifiable

Magsalin v National Organization of Working Men

Brent School v Zamora

Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Ople

ALU-TUCP v NLRC

2.Not within regular business but distinct and identifiable NSC is not in the construction business. For project EEs, what controls is that there is a specific project, period is irrelevant. 2nd par of A280 only applies to casuals. PROJECT EEs Requirement of Workpool (contruction workers hired w/o reference to a particular project): 1. Workers must be on call 2. Not free to offer services to others Not members of workpool as indicated in the termination reports, which in itself proves project employment. PROJECT EEs Farmworkers who work for same tasks for every season for several years are regulars. When its off season, they are considered on leave. Seasonal workers in A280, work must be seasonal in nature and for only one season. REGULAR NOT SEASONAL Seafarers are not regular EEs. Brent v Zamora was applied. It is accepted maritime practice, national and cultural diversity, and they are not always at sea. POEA rules govern and not A280. Renewal of contract means eligible for rehire not that they will be permanent. SEAFARERS ARE CONTRACTUALS NOT REGULARS 5 month contract held void. N&D to tuna canning. Brent v Zamora test failed. Not on equal terms. REGULARS NOT CONTRACTUALS For project EEs, there must be knowing consent of the period provided and it was voluntarily agreed upon. This requires the presentation in evidence of the employment contract which Hanjin failed to do. REGULARS NOT PROJECT EEs

Ricardo Fernandez v NLRC

Hacienda Fatima v National Federation of Sugarcane Workers

Millares v NLRC

Purefoods Corp v NLRC

Hanjin Heavy Industries and Const v Ibaes

Caseres v Universal Robina

Price v Innodata Phils

Aurora Land Projects v NLRC

Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort v Visca

Contract executed was held valid. Caseres is made to understand that his work is coterminous which depends on its availability, that he is free to work elsewhere, and that there are intervals. Even if re-hired, length of service is not relevant to project EEs. PROJECT EEs NOT REGULAR Formatters are N&D. There was reasonable connection. Contract was not valid. First, it was tampered with. Second, the terms are ambiguous, no project was mentioned and unilateral pre-termination with or without cause or for completion of unspecified project. REGULAR NOT PROJECT 4fold test was passed. Regular EE according to both paragraphs of A280. N&D and has worked for 38 years. Fatal: Nonsubmission of termination reports in accordance with Policy Instruction No.20 REGULAR NOT IC NOT PROJECT Hired continuously for 3-12 years without mentioning a project. No contract with alleged period. No termination report. Rehired-sufficient evidence of necessity (continuously, same tasks, same ER and tasks are indispensable to the business) Complementary distribution system is valid MP as long as it is exercised in GF. Offer to pay back adjustment compensation is indicative of GF. Defined MP: Hiring wrams TPL DR RIGHT TO DETERMINE PROCESSES Right to discipline and dismiss EE must be controlled by substantive due process and tempered by fundamental policy of protecting labor: 1. Sanctions must be demanded by the circumstances 2. Penalty must be commensurate to the act 3. Imposed in connection with the ERs disciplining authority SC said dismissing Faroll is too harsh. RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE Transfer is valid MP if it not unreasonable,

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union v Ople

Farrol v CA

PT&T v Laplana

Zafra v CA

Aurelio v NLRC

Leonardo v NLRC

Almodiel v NLRC

Producers Bank of the Phils v NLRC

Interphil Lab Employees Union v Interphil Lab

PAL v NLRC

inconvenient, nor prejudicial or it does not involve dimunition of salaries and benefits or demotion in rank. Personal inconvenience will not rule out that PT&T is in GF. Laplana suggested that she be retrenched. RIGHT TO TRANSFER The right to transfer must be considered in conjunction with company practice of notifying them before they train abroad. Amounted to constructive dismissal since its arbitrary and burdensome. It is unreasonable, inconvenient, and prejudicial. RIGHT TO TRANSFER Dismissed as college administrator and executive VP. Violated the Admin Manual for Private for holding two positions (also the Dean) and redundant with President. Corporate reorg is MP of BOD. RIGHT TO REORG Demotion for not being able to meet his sales quota. An ER is entitled to impose productivity standard and in fact, non-compliance may be given penalty more severe than demotion. RIGHT TO IMPOSE PRODUCTIVITY STANDARD Cost Accounting position was abolished for redundancy. Absorption of functions by another does not affect the right of management to abolish. Petitioner did not allege that Ang Tan Chai did not have the minimum qualification for the position. Hence, it is within the MP to hire. RIGHT TO ABOLISH POSITION. RIGHT TO HIRE. Bonus is MP. It is an act of generosity which is not demandable/enforceable. Producers Bank is in conservatorship and cannot be compelled to pay bonus. PREROGATIVE TO GIVE BONUS It is even in the CBA that management is given the right to change working schedule. Continuous 24-hour work daily sked by nature of the business and demand of the client is valid MP. EEs waived 8-hr sked when they adhered to the 12-hr sked. RIGH TO CHANGE WORKING SCHEDULE Distinguish MP into: 1. Business operations per se 2. Those which affect rights of EE.

Star Paper Corp v Simbol

Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome

Yrasegui v PAL

Bising ng Manggagawa sa Tryco v NLRC

SC held that even if before RA 6715, management needs to be transparent about policies affecting EEs rights. (by A211 promotion of enlightenment) Code of Discipline must be discussed with PALEA and copies must be distributed to all. RIGHT TO PROMULGATE POLICIES AFFECTING RIGHTS OF EEs MUST BE SHARED WITH EEs Prohibiting two EEs to get married is invalid MP w/o reasonable business necessity. There must be compelling business necessity: 1. Qualification is reasonably relation to the essential operation of the job involved. 2. Factual basis that all persons with such qualification would be unable to properly perform duties. No reasonable necessity was shown for banning marriages. There was disparate impact (vs. disparate treatment) not facially violating A136 but discriminates EEs based on unfounded stereotypes of married persons working together in one company. RIGHT TO IMPOSE EE QUALIFICATION MUST NOT BE DISCRIMINATORY Valid company policy of banning marriage with EEs of competitor companies. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies. Not a prohibition on relationships but conflict of interest is just avoided. COMPELLING BUSINESS NECESSITY MAKES DISCRIMINATORY QUALIFICATIONS VALID Obesity is analogous cause under A282 (e), not an illness Weight standard for flight attendants is Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Meiorin Test of SC of Canada: 1.purpose is rationally connected to the performance of the job 2.standard is reasonably necessary 3.standard is reasonable necessary to accomplish work-related purpose Star Paper v Simbol Compelling Business Necessity Test passed. Weight standard is required for flight safety during emergency situations. WEIGHT STANDARD IS VALID BFOQ Transfer of operations from Caloocan to Bulacan. Mere inconvenience is not a valid reason to

disobey an order of transfer. RIGHT TO DESIGNATE PLACE OF OPERATIONS

RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION

La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory v Dir of BLR 31 members of 48 member of the union withdrew BEFORE filing of petition for certification election. Before filing-voluntary since the names are supposed to be secret to the opposing party. After filing-involuntary. Presumption would arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress, coercion or for valuable consideration. Only 3 left. Petition for certification election dismissed. No union election was held. It was a convocation of faculty clubs not a union meeting. It was attended by union and non-union members. No comelec was constituted. Not secret balloting but show of hands. Union election is within the exclusive right of union members. Right not to join union must give way to unionism

UST Faculty Union v Bitonio

BPI v BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter